|author||Ori Bernstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2014-06-18 01:10:30 -0400|
|committer||Ori Bernstein <email@example.com>||2014-06-18 01:10:30 -0400|
Merge pull request #1 from akoshibe/master
added sockproto values
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/compiler.txt')
1 files changed, 336 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/compiler.txt b/doc/compiler.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,336 @@
+ Structure of the Myrddin Compiler
+ Aug 2012
+ Ori Bernstein
+TABLE OF CONTENTS:
+ 1. OVERVIEW
+ 1.1. Tree Structure
+ 2. PARSING
+ 2.1. Lexing
+ 2.2. AST Creation
+ 2.3. Type checking
+ 2.4. Generic Specialization
+ 2.5. Serialization
+ 2.6. Usefiles
+ 3. FLATTENING
+ 3.1. Control Flow
+ 3.2. Complex Expressions
+ 4. OPTIMIZATION
+ 4.1. Constant Folding
+ 5. CODE GENERATION
+ 5.1. Instruction Selection
+ 5.2. Register Allocation
+ 6. TUTORIAL: ADDING A STATEMENT
+ 6.1. Stubbing in the node types
+ 6.2. Parsing
+ 6.3. Flattening
+ 6.4. Optimization
+ 6.5. Instruction Selection
+ The Myrddin compiler suite consists of a set of binaries, written in C,
+ which translate Myrddin source code to the assembly most appropriate for
+ the target platform, and subsequently invoke the native assembler on it.
+ The linker is not invoked by the compiler, and the final output is an
+ object file for the target platform.
+ The compilers are named with a single character for the target platform,
+ with a single character for the language being compiled. A table of the
+ compilers and their names is below:
+ Compiler Platform
+ 6m x86-64
+ The compilation is divided into a small number of phases. The first phase
+ is parsing, where the source code is first tokenized, the abstract syntax
+ tree (AST) is generated, and semantically checked. The second phase is the
+ machine-dependent tree flattening. In this phase, the tree is decomposed
+ function by function into simple operations that are relatively close to
+ the machine. Sizes are fixed, and all loops, if statements, etc. are
+ replaced with gotos. The next phase is a machine-independent optimizer,
+ which currenty does nothing other than simply folding trees. In the final
+ phase, the instructions are selected and the registers are allocated.
+ So, to recap, the phases are as follows:
+ parse Tokenize, parse, and analyze the source
+ flatten Rewrite the complex nodes into simpe ones
+ opt Optimize the flattened source trees
+ gen Generate the assembly code
+ 1.1. Tree Structure:
+ File nodes (n->type == Nfile) represent the files being compiled. The current
+ node is held in a global variable called, unsurprisingly, 'file'. The
+ global symbol table, export table, uses, and other compilation-specific
+ information is stored in this node. This implies that the compiler can
+ only process one file at a time.
+ Name nodes (n->type == Nname) are simply names, possibly with a namespace
+ attached. They are left as leaf nodes in the tree, specifying variable
+ names, union tags, and just about anything else with a name.
+ Use nodes (n->type == Nuse) simply tell the compiler that a usefile by the
+ name stored in this node will be loaded.
+ Expression nodes (n->type == Nexpr) represent expressions. They consist of
+ an operator, a type, a few flags, possibly a declaration ID, and a list of
+ Operators are defined in parse/ops.def, and start with an 'O' by
+ convention; eg: Oadd, Osub, etc.
+ The declaration id (n->expr.did) is only valid on expressions representing
+ a single variable (n->expr.op == Ovar). The DID is a unique identifier
+ representing the declaration node that the variable refers to. This is used
+ for a variety of things, from fast comparisons to allowing us to put the
+ node into a bit set easily.
+ Literal nodes (n->type == Nlit) hold a literal value. The type held is
+ stored in littype, which are defined in parse/lits.def.
+ The various statement nodes (Nloopstmt, Nifstmt, Nmatchstmt, Nblock,
+ Nlbl) are all statements that may appear within a block node (Nblock).
+ Declaration nodes declare a name in a symbol table. TODO: MORE DETAIL.
+ Uelt nodes declare a union element. TODO: MORE DETAIL.
+ Func nodes declare a function. TODO: MORE DETAIL.
+ This phase takes in a source file, and outputs a tree that is guaranteed
+ to be valid. The tree nodes are defined in parse/parse.h in struct Node,
+ and have one of the types defined in parse/nodetypes.def. Node types
+ start with 'N' by convention; eg: Nfile, Nifstmt, etc.
+ 2.1. Lexing:
+ Lexing occurs in parse/tok.c. Because we want to use this lexer from
+ within yacc, the entry point to this code is in 'yylex()'. As required
+ by yacc, 'yylex()' returns an integer defining the token type, and
+ sets the 'tok' member of yylval to the token that was taken from the
+ input stream. In addition, to allow for better error messages, the
+ global variable 'curtok' is set to the value of 'yylval.tok'. This
+ allows yyerror to print the last token that was seen.
+ The tokens that are allowable are generated by Yacc from the '%token'
+ definitions in parse/gram.y, and are placed into the file
+ 'parse/gram.h'. The lexer and parser code is the only code that
+ depends on these token constants.
+ The lexer is initalized through 'tokinit(char *file)'. This function
+ will open the file passed in, read all the data from it in one go
+ and set up the internal data for the tokenizer. The tokenizing is then
+ done while the whole file is in memory, which means that this code
+ will work poorly on files that are larger than the address space
+ available to the compiler. If this is a problem, you deserve all the
+ pain that is caused.
+ The file data is stored in the three global variables 'fidx', 'fbuf',
+ and 'fbufsz'. The actual tokenization happens through 'toknext()' and
+ its callees, which operate on these data structures character by
+ character, matching the values read, and shoving them into the 'Tok'
+ data structure.
+ 2.2. AST Creation:
+ The parser used is a traditional Yacc-based parser. It is generated
+ from the source in parse/gram.y. The starting production is 'file',
+ which fills in a global 'file' tree node. This 'file' tree node must
+ be initialized before yyparse() is called.
+ 2.3. Type Checking:
+ Type checking is done through unification of types. It's implemented
+ in parse/infer.c. It proceeds through a simple unification algorithm,
+ which is documented in lang.txt. As a result, only the internal
+ details of this algorithm will be discussed here.
+ The first step done is loading and resolving use files. This is
+ deferred to the type checking phase for two reasons. First, we
+ do not want to force tools to have all dependencies compiled if they
+ use this parser, even though type full type checking is impossible
+ until all usefiles are loaded. And second, this is when the
+ information is actually needed.
+ Next, the types declared in the package section are merged with the
+ exported types, allowing us to start off with our type information as
+ complete as possible, and making sure that the types of globals
+ actually match up with the exported types.
+ The next step is the actual type inference. We do a bottom-up walk of
+ the tree, unifying types as we go. There are subtleties with the
+ member operator, however. Because the '.' operator is used for both
+ member lookups and namespace lookups, before we descend into a node
+ that has operator Omemb, we need to check if it's a namespaced name,
+ or an actual member reference. If it is a namespaced name, we replace
+ the expression with an Ovar expression. This check happens in the
+ 'checkns()' function. Second, because we need to know the LHS of a
+ member expression before we can check if the RHS is valid, and we
+ are not guaranteed to know this at the first time that we see it, the
+ expression is assumed to be valid, and this asumption is verified in
+ a post-processing pass. Casts are validated in a deferred manner
+ Generic variables are added to a list of generic callsites to
+ specialize when they are seen in as a leaf of an Ovar node.
+ The type inference, to this point, has only built up a mapping
+ of types. So, for example, if we were to have the inferred types
+ for the following set of statements:
+ var a
+ var b
+ var c
+ a = b
+ c = b + 1
+ We would have the mappings:
+ $t0 -> $t1
+ $t1 -> $t2
+ $t2 -> int
+ So, in the 'typesub()' function, we iterate over the entire tree,
+ replacing every instance of a non-concrete type with the final
+ mapped type. If a type does not map to a fully concrete type,
+ this is where we flag an error.
+ FIXME: DESCRIBE HOW YOU FIXED GENERICS ONCE YOU FIX GENERICS.
+ 2.4. Generic Specialization:
+ After type inference (well, technially, as the final step of it),
+ we walk through the list of callsites that need instantiations
+ of generics, and create a specialized generic instance for each of
+ them. This specialization is done, unsurprisingly, in specialize.c,
+ by the simple algorithm of cloning the entire tree that needs to
+ be specialized, and walking over all nodes substituting the types
+ that are replacing the type parameters.
+ 2.5. Serialization:
+ Trees of all sorts can be serialized and deserialized from files,
+ as long as they are fully typed. Trees containing type variables (ie,
+ uninferred types) cannot be serialized, as type variables cannot be
+ deserialized meaningfully.
+ The format for this is only documented in the source, and is a
+ straighforward dump of the trees to memory. It is constantly shifting,
+ and will not reliably work between compiler versions.
+ 2.6. Usefiles:
+ Usefiles are more or less files that consist of a single character tag
+ that tells us what type of tree to deserialize. Because serialized
+ trees are compiler version dependent, so are usefiles.
+ This phase is invoked repeatedly on each top-level declaration that we
+ want to generate code for. There is a good chance that this flattening
+ phase should be made machine-independent, and passed as a parameter
+ a machine description describing known integer and pointer sizes, among
+ other machine attributes. However, for now, it is machine-dependent,
+ and lives in 6/simp.c.
+ The goal of flattening a tree is to take semantically involved constructs
+ such as looping, and simplify things into something that is easy to
+ generate code for, as well as something that is easier to analyze for
+ 3.1. Control Flow:
+ All if statements, loops, and other complex constructs are simplified
+ to jumps and conditional jumps. Loops are generally simplified from
+ something that would look like this:
+ To something that would look like this:
+ jmp cond
+ cjmp cond .loop .end
+ Boolean expressions are simplified to a location to jump to, as
+ described in section 8.4 of the Dragon book.
+ 3.2. Complex Expressions:
+ Complex expressions such as copying types larger than a single machine
+ word, pulling members out of structures, emulating multiplication and
+ division for larger integers sizes, and similar operations are reduced
+ to trees that are expressible in terms of simple machine operations.
+ By the end of the simplification pass, the following operators should
+ not be present in the trees:
+ Obad Oret Opreinc Opostinc Opredec Opostdec Olor Oland Oaddeq
+ Osubeq Omuleq Odiveq Omodeq Oboreq Obandeq Obxoreq Obsleq
+ Obsreq Omemb Oslice Oidx Osize Numops Oucon Ouget Otup Oarr
+ Oslbase Osllen Ocast
+ Currently, there is virtually no optimization done on the trees after
+ flattening. The only optimization that is done is constant folding.
+ 4.1. Constant Folding:
+ Expressions with constant values are simplified algebraically. For
+ example, the expression 'x*1' is simplified to 'x', '0/n' is
+ simplified to '0', and so on.
+5. CODE GENERATION:
+ 5.1. Instruction Selection:
+ Instruction selection is done via a simple handwritten bottom-up pass
+ over the tree. Common patterns such as scaled or offset indexing are
+ recognized by the patterns, but no attempts are made at finding an
+ optimal tiling.
+ 5.2. Register Allocation:
+ Register allocation is done via the algorithm described in "Iterated
+ Regster Coalescing" by Appel and George. As of the time of this
+ writing, the register allocator does not yet implement overlapping
+ register classes. This will be done as described in "A generalized
+ algorithm for graph-coloring register allocation" by Smith, Ramsey,
+ and Holloway.
+6: TUTORIAL: ADDING A STATEMENT:
+ 6.1. Stubbing in the node types:
+ 6.2. Parsing:
+ 6.3. Flattening:
+ 6.4. Optimization:
+ 6.5. Instruction Selection:
+ Aho, Sethi, Ullman: Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, 1988.
+ ISBN 0-201-10088-6